I’m not really sure how to respond.

I don’t know what “endorsement” Minnick would be referring to. Piper wrote a 240 page book arguing against what he sees as the problems in Wright’s work. That’s more than any fundamentalist, including Minnick, has come close to doing.

If Minnick is just unhappy that Piper didn’t present his criticism harshly, well that’s a lot different than “endorsement.” And, honest men can differ on when and how it is appropriate to be harsh.

Personally, I don’t see that saying, “You are wrong and an intentionally deceptive and destructive creature,” adds anything helpful or productive to just saying, “You are wrong here, and here is why.” You and Minnick are free to disagree.

Out of curiosity, how much Wright have you and Don read? How do you know he is heretical? Because Minnick says so? Why should Minnick’s approach be accepted over Piper’s? How will you independents decide which approach is normative?

You wrote, “No, NT Wright is not a problem in the PCA.”

Maybe not in the PCA, but in a FrontLine article (about a year ago) Dr. Mark Minnick noted NT Wright as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and in the article chastised John Piper for giving Wright an endorsement.

FYI,

LM

Well, we’ll have to disagree. I am not overly concerned about my influence on the church at large, but I am concerned about guiding the flock that the Lord has given me and for which I am accountable. We watch for error and false teaching and as needed point it out if and when our people run into false ideas.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

And, no denominational superiority intended either. What I was getting at wasn’t superiority, it’s just simple logic. A conected church CAN do something with checks and balances that independents cannot. The debate as to whether this is better or not is a separate issue.

And, seriously now, you really think that reason that “fundamentalism” doesn’t have a problem with Wright is because someone has been guarding the door? I’d argue that a better analogy is that no one is answering the phone. You can’t have a problem with outside influences when you are unaware of them.

No, NT Wright is not a problem in the PCA.

As to my unwillingness to brand him a heretic. Well, I could take the same approach to your unwillingness to brand the KJVO crowd as heretics. But, what does it really matter? Who cares if I brand anyone a heretic — who am I? And who cares if you do? Who are you? When the church brands someone a heretic, well then it means something.

If you want to persuade the church at large to agree that Wright is a heretic (not just in error), have at it. But no individual’s decision is normative. I seem to remember Bob Jones Jr. and III unilaterally branding John MacArthur a heretic and making quite a stir. Only problem — it wasn’t true.

Indeed! If we look at what the T4G/TGC will tolerate and allow for under the umbrella of gospel-driven affiliations we see this includes Charismatic theology, ecumenical compromises with unbelievers, compromised SBC preachers, CCM, amillennialism.

These are the same issues that certain self-proclaimed separatists in IFB circles have come to tolerate and allow for so that the can converge around a certain interpretation of the gospel with evangelicals in the T4G community.

Gospel driven separation alone is the new obedience* to separatism.

The paradigm shift away from separation for the sake of a pure church as good men like Dr. Ernest Pickering defined the biblical mandates. Today fellowship and cooperation around an interpretation of the Gospel apart from- withdrawing from, avoiding/marking and/or separating from men and movements that compromise the Gospel and the Scriptures.

LM

* What I mean to communicate and why I use “obedience” is because true obedience to all that the Bible calls for separation/withdrawing from has been replaced by obedience to the new narrow grounds for separatism, the gospel, which IMO has lead to disobedience.

Keith, what do we need to do? We don’t have a problem with Wright’s influence because we guard the door on the left hand side. The evangelicals don’t, which is why they constantly have problems with leftward drift.

The PCA’s efforts against Wright now, what has it amounted to? Is NT Wright still a problem in the PCA or not? I think he is, from the PCA guys I read. So spare me the superiority of denominational response. It hasn’t been terribly effective because evangelicalism doesn’t really guard the door on the left – evangelicalism is committed to dialog to some extent or other. Your unwillingness to brand Wright a heretic is a case in point.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

What have fundamentalists done to separate from, or even take a clear stand on Wright (who I wouldn’t classify as a heretic, even though I wouldn’t agree with everything he says)?

Most fundamentalists probably didn’t/don’t even know about Wright. And, if they do, their separation amounts to . . . what?

The PCA on the other hand, studied the matter, clearly stated its concerns and disagreements and what they would do about it. It’s more than just lobbing newsletter (in the old days) or internet (now) grenades.

But, I’ll leave it alone because you’re only talking about guys in “your” crowd — whatever that is (which is really the problem, as a loose network of independents there is no productive way for the crowd to be defined or for the crowd to act corporately).

Hi Keith

I am aware that the PCA was born out of real struggle with modernism. I am all in favor of what they have done in that regard. But quite clearly from your account, they too do not see separation as merely gospel-driven.

But they are really outside the parameters of this discussion. What I am after in this are those in ‘our’ crowd who are trying to minimize separatism by using the term ‘gospel-driven’. They are backing off the issues that divide fundamentalists from evangelicals. I still maintain that those issues are real and important. They still create a barrier to cooperation because evangelicals will not guard their left.

You mention NT Wright and the NPP. Clearly it is a matter of controversy in evangelical circles. Some are open to him, others are not. Yet after ample evidence of heretical views, evangelicals cannot come to a definitive view of Wright/NPP. Fundamentalists do not have this problem. But we would have the problem if we joined in cooperation with those who are unwilling to take a definitive stand against the NPP.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry it came across that way. I pulled two quotes and juxtaposed them to make a point.

The point is that much (most/all) the talk about the importance of separation — even separation beyond the gospel (taken out of context as referring to a minimalist “how to be saved” definition of the term) — is coming from people with statements of faith that come nowhere close to the comprehensiveness of some of those “gospel-driven” separatists.

I’m sure that your criticism of the “gospel-driven crowd” at the moment has Bauder, Doran, etc. in mind. However, you have in the past included the T4G guys and the Gospel Coalition guys in this label. Well, Duncan (T4G), Keller (Gospel Coalition) and others in these orbits subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the PCA Book of Church Order, etc. Documents hammered out by a community of ministers with much prayer, deliberation, and study and refined over years.

Further, to keep the record straight, the PCA was born out of real, costly actual separatism — not the kind of separatism that is merely public criticism of people they disagree with. In 1973,the southern branch of the PCA separated from the mainline southern presbyterian church (PCUS) when that church merged with the liberal northern presbyterian church (to become the PCUSA). Many lost their buildings and more. In 1982, the northern branch of the PCA joined the southern branch. The northern branch (RPCES) had separated from the liberal northern presbyterian church in the 1930s. They also suffered great, real losses.

And, the PCA still deals with issues of separation all the time. Some issues of separation that have been dealt with in recent years: What views of eschatology demand separation? What views of women’s roles in the church? What about paedo communion? What views of the application of Old Testament Law? NT Wright/New Perspectives on Paul? Federal Vision? etc. And, there a process to do this carefully, with checks and balances. It isn’t one pastor or one Bible college president deciding that someone is a heretic.

Keith, you are missing the point and taking two quotes out of context to try to make me say something I am not saying.

This issue isn’t about doctrinal statements.

The issue is whether separatism should be ‘gospel-driven’ and no more. I am certainly comfortable with separating over the gospel. But there is more to separation than the gospel alone.

The PCA and whoever else you might be thinking of are not in view here at all. They aren’t talking about separation at all, unless it is from the fundamentalists. That could hardly be called ‘gospel-driven’.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3